Zeus' Ethics Quiz

[SuF]

So just to be clear: You can't refute my seven point argument without contradicting yourself, but you are still going to maintain your position?

That's an admission of defeat and a rejection of logic.

What? No. I accept that there exists some things that are seemingly separate from myself. This does not have any contradiction. What it does do is prove your logic wrong. It is entirely possible that everything outside of my thoughts is simply my mind creating an illusion. Thus even though you, and your arguments, seem to be outside of my me they are really not. They are within me so I am currently arguing with myself. My mind is holding two contradictory positions as true and yet is still operating logically.

 

What? No. I accept that there exists some things that are seemingly separate from myself. This does not have any contradiction. What it does do is prove your logic wrong. It is entirely possible that everything outside of my thoughts is simply my mind creating an illusion. Thus even though you, and your arguments, seem to be outside of my me they are really not. They are within me so I am currently arguing with myself. My mind is holding two contradictory positions as true and yet is still operating logically.

You're just going in circles. This certainly does not disprove my argument any more than saying "you're wrong" disproves my argument. All you have done is make an assertion.

If you cannot refute one of the below 7 statements then you must accept objective reality and the existence of others outside your own mind.

Existence:
1. An argument is put forward.
2. Someone or thing (an arguer) must exist in order to put it forward.

Independence:
1. If you are arguing then either you are arguing with yourself or with someone else.
2. If you are arguing with yourself then logic is not possible as this would require you to hold and accept two contradictory positions at the same time.
3. If logic is not possible, then argument is not possible.
4. You cannot be arguing with yourself.
5. If you are arguing, and you cannot be arguing with yourself, then you must be arguing with someone else.

 

[SuF]

You're just going in circles. This certainly does not disprove my argument any more than saying "you're wrong" disproves my argument. All you have done is make an assertion.

If you cannot refute one of the below 7 statements then you must accept objective reality and the existence of others outside your own mind.

Existence:
1. An argument is put forward.
2. Someone or thing (an arguer) must exist in order to put it forward.

Independence:
1. If you are arguing then either you are arguing with yourself or with someone else.
2. If you are arguing with yourself then logic is not possible as this would require you to hold and accept two contradictory positions at the same time.
3. If logic is not possible, then argument is not possible.
4. You cannot be arguing with yourself.
5. If you are arguing, and you cannot be arguing with yourself, then you must be arguing with someone else.

I have shown how 2 under Independence fails. It fails very obviously.

 

I have shown how 2 under Independence fails. It fails very obviously.

You didn't show #2 fails. You don't seem to understand that what you tried to do constitutes a performative contradiction. Go back and re-read.

 

[Punjabi3]

@Sythe
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=76660

@SuF
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=1

 

[SuF]

You didn't show #2 fails. You don't seem to understand that what you tried to do constitutes a performative contradiction. Go back and re-read.

No. You got back and reread. I made it perfectly clear by counter example that you can argue with yourself. I can't make it any simpler.

 

[SuF]

@Sythe
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=76660

@SuF
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=1

A) Spam forum
B) Owner of website
C) Even on topic
D) No.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Sythe, you have still yet to refute my example of internal argumentation, which counters your independence #2, (debate in one of your dreams: between someone you imagine as one entity and someone you imagine as a separate entity).

Nevertheless, to go about formally proving others' existence, it is not enough to simply refute what your perceive as their arguments of doubt as irrational and contradictory, as the burdon of proof is on you.

I would go about it by using the Platonic idea that knowledge is justified true belief. Therefore, you should define what you view as valid sources of knowledge, provide justified reasoning for how these sources of knowledge are valid, and use the sources of knowledge to determine others' existence.